Images | Commentary | Digital Scrapbook
The 1968 Tet Offensive resulted in an increase in fighting along the DMZ. A bitter clash started 30 April and ran through 3 May between 2/4 and 320th NVA Division (8,000 to 10,000 soldiers) that broke out northeast of Đông Hà. To protect the base and also the 3rd Marine Division headquarters, 2/4 reinforced by B/1/3 was moved forward to seize the fortified village and area around Dai Do. After three days of bloody fighting the cost was very high for both sides. The enemy lost nearly 1500 killed, while 2/4 suffered 81 dead and 397 wounded. The battalion commanding officer Lt. Col. William Weise received the Navy Cross and two company commanders, Captain James E. Livingston (E Co.) and Captain Jay R. Vargas (G Co.) were awarded the Medal of Honor for their bravery and leadership. By 15 May the NVA were driven back north across the DMZ. Total losses for the Marines were 233 killed and 821 wounded. The NVA’s losses were put at 2945 killed and 47 POW’s.
I highly recommend this documentary. 500 marines stumble into an NVA division and battle it out for 4 days. In the end, the NVA leave a fortified attack base and retreat north of the DMZ. A film crew was on site for the last day of the battle. The crew interviewed the commander Lt. Col. William Weise while he was on a stretcher about to be evacuated because of wounds. The Colonel said, “we hurt ’em bad, but they hurt us, too.”
I love these men.
Ned Ryun:
“…What a world we live in. A confidential asset of a hyper-political CIA director, likely handpicked by the director to spy on the Trump White House, is now called a “whistleblower.” The son of a former vice-president and a current Democrat nominee was apparently eyeball-deep in corruption in Ukraine, and the Left screams that the president—for daring to broach the issue with Ukraine—should be impeached. Political pygmies, otherwise known as the Democrat 2020 field, prance about the country offering up program ideas tallying up to over $200 trillion in the first ten years of operation (against the roughly $44 trillion the government would bring in over the same time). Such programs would cost us millions of jobs, among other bad consequences. Yet we are expected to believe these are serious people…”
Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds
These headlines tells you everything you need to know about the guy
STEPHEN KRUISER:
“…The Great Republican Splintering of 2016 quickly evolved into three camps once President Trump got into office.
One was filled with those who were on the Trump train from the beginning. These were people who were probably on their third MAGA hat by the time the election rolled around.
Then there were the Never Trumpers. The harbingers of doom who linked arms with the Democrats to assure us that Donald Trump posed an existential threat to the United States of America.
The third group may be the largest of the three: These are people who were initially Trump skeptics but have been willing to praise the good and shake their heads at the bad. I’m in this group. One of the things we have in common is that we are surprised at how much there has been to praise.
Trump’s greatest legacy will be his reshaping of the judiciary, which Tyler wrote about yesterday. POTUS himself is rightfully proud of his accomplishments with the judiciary:
Liberal judges are activist judges. They seek to accomplish via judicial fiat what Democrats can’t achieve legislatively. They’ve been a plague for years, just like the late Robert Bork warned us they would be in his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah.
Trump’s infusion of constitutionalist judges into the federal judiciary is a wall of sorts, a barrier keeping activist judges from reshaping American society according to the whims of fringe progressives. It may end up providing more security for America than the border wall, at least for a generation.
This issue has been what is causing the ever-worsening divide between people like me and Republicans — or former Republicans — who are still avowed Never Trumpers. They blather on about their principles, continually disparaging Trump because he doesn’t fit their constipated Capitol Hill Club image of a president.
The reality is that, in overhauling the federal judiciary, Trump has done more in three years for conservatives and Republicans than Bush 41 and Bush 43 did in twelve.
But hey, they were nice guys.
A quality I’ve never cared about in a president…”
VICTORIA TOENSING: You are going to see it, Lou. but I am not predicting so much from anonymous sources… But I can tell you this, we have darn good sources for this. It’s going to be very bad for the people in the Obama administration. My source said to me, it’s going to be worse than you can imagine.
DOBBS: That’s a heck of a tease, Victoria. I’m already chomping at the bit to get the thing. Joe, your thoughts on that Horowitz report. It doesn’t sound like it’s going to be a tepid matter. Explosive, would you would say?
JOE DIGENOVA: I would say explosive and I would say for people at the highest levels of the FBI and at the highest levels at the Justice Department, more important the Justice Department, it’s going to be devastating. It’s going to ruin careers. It’s going to make people have bar problems…
Because what’s clear now we know is that the senior levels of the Obama Justice Department were complicit in knowingly submitting materially false applications to the FISA court for an illegitimate counterintelligence purpose, not for a legitimate purpose but to spy on Americans for political purposes. It really will end up being the beginning of the greatest political scandal in history. And it’s being held up partially because of John Durham’s new grand jury which by the way exists for one reason and one reason only because people are going to be indicted.
I&I Editorial:
“…The global warming true believers are convinced of their moral superiority. In their minds, they’re just better people. But better people don’t advocate thinning of the human population. The alarmists do.
A group of “more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world” has declared “clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency,” and recommends leaving fossil fuels “in the ground,” replaced by low-carbon renewable energy sources.
Nothing new there. Crackpots have been predicting the end of the world for probably as long as man has existed.
This group, though, also believes that because the global population is “still increasing by roughly 80 million people per year, or more than 200,000 per day,” it “must be stabilized — and, ideally, gradually reduced — within a framework that ensures social integrity.”
By what authority do these scientists believe they have the right to reduce the number of humans? And through what mechanism do they propose to use to reach their goal?
Henry I. Miller, a physician, molecular biologist, and Pacific Research Institute senior fellow, as well as a contributing editor on these pages, says “the scientists’ assumption of a ‘climate emergency’ requiring policymakers imminently to introduce not only radical changes to energy, food, and economic policies but also population control, verges on the hysterical.”
Others have already crossed that line…”
Hugo Gurdon:
“…So, what’s the real reason for today’s misdirection and secrecy? It is that sunlight is an excellent disinfectant and Democrats therefore have a vested interest in concealment? They want Trump ousted either by impeachment or by caking him with enough dirt to make him repellent to 2020 voters. Those voters should be allowed to know who started the Ukraine narrative, what political bias came into play, and how much it was shaped by Schiff, who has already been caught falsifying what he knew and when. After all, if the alternative to Trump is the Democrats, shouldn’t the public know what the Democrats have been up to?
This brings me back to mirror telexing. I suspect Ciaramella — let us continue the hypothesis — was involved in a role reversal with Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Vindman is the Ukraine director on the National Security Council, the same position Ciaramella had in 2017, and he recently testified to the impeachment committee. Vindman was on the July 25 call. Ciaramella was not. Ciaramella, if he’s the whistleblower, probably got his ideas about the call from Vindman; they’re bound to have known each other. It seems likely that they arranged for Ciaramella to step forward as the whistleblower and for Vindman to follow up by testifying to the truth of a story of which he himself was the author.
If Vindman is the source of the whistleblower account, that would certainly undermine the force of Vindman’s supposed corroboration of the whistleblower account.
If Vindman was not the starting point for the whistleblower’s view of the phone call, who was? The public deserves to know. Let’s not keep this secret…”
Mollie Hemingway:
“…The last four years of political punditry and analysis have been objectively wretched. Regardless of your feelings about the present political moment, precisely no one can defend the quality of the analysis that dominates the airwaves and pages of our corporate media.
They told us throughout the 2016 campaign that the notion of Donald Trump winning the presidency was a joke. The mockery increased as election day drew near. From the Washington Post: “Donald Trump’s chances of winning are approaching zero.”
While failing to understand the country you’re paid big bucks to understand is humiliating, admitting their failure would have been a better alternative to the spiral of Trump Derangement that grips many of our media and continues to make their political analysis a sad joke.
Our low quality of punditry and analysis is on display in the crime-less impeachment that they are currently pushing to mixed success. Democrats and other Resistance members are absolutely on board. The rest of the country? Not so much.
Coverage of a new poll out from Monmouth beautifully illustrates how Trump Derangement destroys what should be simple political analysis. The poll was brutal for impeachment fans in the media. Just less than 60 percent of respondents agreed that “people who want Trump out of office should just vote him out next year instead of going through impeachment.” Seventy-three percent have little or no trust in the impeachment process. And 60 percent say Democrats are more interested in bringing down Trump than in learning facts…”
JOHN KASS:
“…Let’s remember what ABC, NBC and other media did to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing just a year ago, destroying his reputation, smearing him without evidence because he wasn’t on their political team.
Oh, you don’t want to go near Kavanaugh? Then just get off the bus, because I’m going there.
There is just no responsible way to discuss ABC’s alleged spiking of the Epstein story — or NBC’s spiking of the Harvey Weinstein story — without dealing with how those news networks, and other media outlets, worked frantically to destroy Kavanaugh.
Many in the media had one standard for Epstein and Weinstein, who had clout with Democrats including Bill and Hillary Clinton.
But Kavanaugh? He’s a Bush Republican nominated by President Donald Trump.
So that other standard was applied, one that allowed unsubstantiated allegations to be reported and repeated, endlessly, in an attempt to ruin him and keep him off the Supreme Court.
It seems clear now, from the Ronan Farrow stories and other accounts, and from Robach’s hot mic take, that NBC and ABC showed great deference to Epstein and Weinstein.
But Kavanaugh? He wasn’t treated deferentially. His reputation was destroyed by wild, unsupported and fantastic allegations that he was a serial sex predator.
Without corroboration, Kavanaugh was even shamed as the leader of a gang-rape crew that drugged young women before attacking them. The unctuous and now discredited lawyer Michael Avenatti was constantly on TV, welcomed on ABC, with his lips and tongue wet and malicious with gossip.
When Kavanaugh dared become angry about the smears, TV panels of talking heads said he was all but insane. Newspapers were also attacking Kavanaugh, and now many are busy skinning Trump and calling his 60 million voters — some being their own readers — stupid.
But much of the damage done to Kavanaugh was delivered on TV news, because TV — particularly those vapid morning shows like “Good Morning America,” aren’t really about news.
Network TV is about entertainment and the selling of emotion, a place where repeated follow-up questions are avoided, because, we’re told, it’s not good TV.
“I had this interview with Virginia Roberts,” Robach said on that video, referencing an alleged Epstein sex slave victim. “We would not put it on the air. The (British royal) palace found out we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million ways.
“We (ABC) were afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview (English royals) Kate and Will, that we, that also quashed the story.”
ABC lawyers earned their pay and issued statements that the Epstein reporting wasn’t up to standard. And a Robach statement was issued, saying that the Project Veritas video caught her “in a private moment. … I was upset that an important interview I had concocted with Virginia Roberts didn’t air because I could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards.”
Again: Where were those standards when Avenatti client Julie Swetnick smeared Kavanaugh about leading the gang-rape crew?
Where were the standards when ABC News honcho George Stephanopoulos — Clinton Foundation Donor Zero — attended a New York party honoring Epstein, after the sex predator was released from his slap-on-the-wrist 13-month jail sentence in Florida?
Prince Andrew was there. And other media types were there as well, sniffing up to the royals for access.
With Epstein and media show ponies hobnobbing in all that glitz, you might wonder if they pondered their standards.
And, as they held glasses of Champagne and made witty party talk with Epstein and other guests, you also might wonder if their tails twitched.
In the video, Robach comes off as bright, committed, exasperated and upset. But she’s a news pro, wearing a hot mic, talking on set. So, I don’t believe it was a mistake. It seemed rather like a declaration.
Before the Project Veritas story broke, Margaret Sullivan, the media columnist for The Washington Post, excoriated NBC for its handling of the Harvey Weinstein story.
Sullivan properly noted that others at NBC News, from Lester Holt to Rachel Maddow, had demanded answers and hadn’t received answers.
Farrow, then of NBC News, had the story about the Hollywood producer and alleged sexual predator Weinstein. NBC wouldn’t run it, insisting it didn’t meet its standards.
Farrow and others, including NBC producer Rich McHugh, blamed the spiking of the Weinstein story on worries that NBC’s own star at the time, news anchor Matt Lauer, was also facing sexual assault complaints and NBC was protecting itself.
Farrow went to The New Yorker, which published the Weinstein story, for which he received a Pulitzer.
There are many excellent, hardworking and scrupulous journalists in this country, from all political points of view, taking real risks to tell real stories. They are not, as Trump says, the “enemy of the people.”
But then there are those network news honchos who decide that it is open season on people like Kavanaugh, while others who are on their team are protected.
These are the unctuous enemies of something vital to a free republic. They’re the enemies of journalism.
And they’re doing their best to shame it…”
Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds
Sean Davis:
“…A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump…
…When asked who exactly he had spoken to about the brouhaha, Taylor confirmed that his only contacts about the matter were with John Bolton, the former national security adviser who was fired by Trump, Fiona Hill, Alexander Vindman, and Tim Morrison. Both Hill and Vindman are rumored to have been sources for the so-called whistleblower who filed a complaint against Trump in August.
Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky wasn’t first-hand knowledge.
“And this isn’t firsthand. It’s not secondhand. It’s not thirdhand,” Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., said to Taylor. “But if I understand this correctly, you’re telling us that Tim Morrison told you that Ambassador Sondland told him that the president told Ambassador Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an investigation into Biden?”
“That’s correct,” Taylor admitted.
Zeldin noted that the only reference to Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden in Taylor’s opening statement stemmed from that convoluted game of telephone. The New York lawmaker hammered Taylor for relying on third-hand information about the state of mind of an elected official to whom he had never spoken.
“So do you have any other source that the president’s goal in making this request was anything other than The New York Times?” Zeldin asked.
“I have not talked to the president,” Taylor said. “I have no other information from what the president was thinking.”
Under questioning from Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, Taylor also testified that the Ukrainian government wasn’t aware U.S. military funding had been temporarily suspended until late August, and then only after the information was leaked to the news media, meaning an alleged quid pro quo would have been impossible.
“So, if nobody in the Ukrainian government is aware of a military hold at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, then, as a matter of law and as a matter of fact, there can be no quid pro quo, based on military aid,” Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, said. “I just want to be real clear that, again, as of July 25th, you have no knowledge of a quid pro quo involving military aid.”
“July 25th is a week after the hold was put on the security assistance,” Taylor testified. “And July 25th, they had a conversation between the two presidents, where it was not discussed.”
“And to your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian government was aware of the hold?” Ratcliffe asked.
“That is correct,” Taylor responded…”
Another hat tip to Glenn Reynolds